DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12125190. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of instant application are anticipated by claims of ‘190 patent as shown in below.
claim 1 <= ‘190: 1, 18, 20
claim 2 <= ‘190: 1, 18, 20
claim 3 <= ‘190: 1, 18, 20
claim 4 <= ‘190: 17, 19
claim 5 <= ‘190: 17, 19
claim 6 <= ‘190: 17, 19
claim 7 <= ‘190: 2
claim 8 <= ‘190: 3
claim 9 <= ‘190: 7
claim 10 <= ‘190: 1, 18, 20
claim 12 <= ‘190: 18, 20
claim 13 <= ‘190: 18, 20
claim 14 <= ‘190: 18, 20
claim 15 <= ‘190: 19
claim 16 <= ‘190: 19
claim 17 <= ‘190: 19
claim 18 <= ‘190: 3
claim 19 <= ‘190: 18, 20
claim 20 <= ‘190: 1, 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (EP 4266244 A1).
-Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a computing system (FIG. 7) comprising: one or more processors (processor 701, FIG. 7); and memory storing program instructions (memory 702, FIG. 7) that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: obtaining an image of at least a section of a manufactured part (obtain a to-be-detected image 201, FIG. 2, [0036]); comparing, based on executing a neural network on the image, the manufactured part to a representation of a known defective manufactured part (detecting module 602, [0093]); determining, based on the comparing, that the manufactured part was not fabricated according to a specification for the manufactured part (surface defect, [0044]); and in response to determining that the manufactured part was not fabricated according to the specification, generating an electronic alert indicating that the manufactured part was improperly fabricated (outputs a detection result, [0057]).
-Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses a computer-implemented method (FIG. 7) comprising: obtaining an image of at least a section of a manufactured part; comparing, based on executing a neural network on the image, the manufactured part to a representation of a known defective manufactured part (obtain a to-be-detected image 201, FIG. 2, [0036]); determining, based on the comparing, that the manufactured part was not fabricated according to a specification for the manufactured part (detecting module 602, [0093]; surface defect, [0044]); and in response to determining that the manufactured part was not fabricated according to the specification, generating an electronic alert indicating that the manufactured part was improperly fabricated (outputs a detection result, [0057]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, 13, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (EP 4266244 A1) in view of Gong (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0201460).
-Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses a predetermined threshold distance test (distance similarity calculation, [0046]). Zhang is silent to teaching that comparing the manufactured part to the representation of the known defective manufactured part comprises: generating, by the neural network, a first fabrication signature vector embedding of the manufactured part; and determining that the first fabrication signature vector embedding is similar to a second fabrication signature vector embedding of the known defective manufactured part. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Gong.
In the same field of endeavor, Gong teaches comparing the manufactured part to the representation of the known defective manufactured part comprises: generating, by the neural network, a first fabrication signature vector embedding of the manufactured part (feature vector, [0020]); and determining that the first fabrication signature vector embedding is similar to a second fabrication signature vector embedding of the known defective manufactured part (the classification result from the classification CNN 228 may include multiple probability values, each corresponding to one of multiple types of defects in a wafer image, [0022], [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Gong in order to improve the semiconductor fabrication systems, equipment or processes.
-Regarding claim 8, the combination further discloses the neural network comprises an encoder that produces, based on pixels or voxels in the image, a fabrication signature vector embedding that numerically represents physical features of the manufactured part (Gong, encoder 400, [0027], [0028]).
-Regarding claim 9, the combination further discloses the image comprises one or more of: a visible-spectrum photograph of the manufactured part, a two-dimensional scan of the manufactured part, a three-dimensional scan of the manufactured part, an X-ray scan of the manufactured part, or a spectroscopic scan of the manufactured part (Gong, wafer image, abstract).
-Regarding claim 13, the combination further discloses comparing the manufactured part to the representation of the known defective manufactured part comprises: generating, by the neural network, a first fabrication signature vector embedding of the manufactured part (Gong, feature vector, [0020]); and determining that the first fabrication signature vector embedding is within a predetermined threshold distance of a second fabrication signature vector embedding of the known defective manufactured part (Gong, the classification result from the classification CNN 228 may include multiple probability values, each corresponding to one of multiple types of defects in a wafer image, [0022], [0029]; Zhang, distance similarity calculation, [0046]).
-Regarding claim 18, the combination further discloses the neural network comprises an encoder that produces, based on pixels or voxels in the image, a fabrication signature vector embedding that numerically represents physical features of the manufactured part (Gong, encoder 400, [0027], [0028]).
-Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses a computer-implemented method (FIG. 7) comprising: obtaining an image of at least a section of a manufactured part and a second image of at least a second section of a second manufactured part (obtain a to-be-detected image 201, FIG. 2, [0036]); within predetermined threshold distance (distance similarity calculation, [0046]); and in response to determining that the manufactured part was not fabricated according to the specification, generating an electronic alert indicating that the manufactured part was improperly fabricated (outputs a detection result, [0057]).
Zhang is silent to teaching that generating, by a neural network, a fabrication signature vector embedding of the manufactured part and a second fabrication signature vector embedding of the second manufactured part; determining that the fabrication signature vector embedding is not within a predetermined threshold distance of the second fabrication signature vector embedding; in response to determining that the fabrication signature vector embedding is similar to the second fabrication signature vector embedding. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Gong.
In the same field of endeavor, Gong teaches generating, by a neural network, a fabrication signature vector embedding of the manufactured part and a second fabrication signature vector embedding of the second manufactured part (feature vector, [0020]); determining that the fabrication signature vector embedding is similar to the second fabrication signature vector embedding (the classification result from the classification CNN 228 may include multiple probability values, each corresponding to one of multiple types of defects in a wafer image, [0022], [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Gong in order to improve the semiconductor fabrication systems, equipment or processes.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (EP 4266244 A1) in view of Gong (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0201460) and further in view of Moioli (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2020/0134809).
-Regarding claim 3, the combination is silent to teaching that the electronic alert also indicates that the manufactured part was fabricated by a same manufacturing machine as the known defective manufactured part. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Moioli.
In the same field of endeavor, Moioli teaches the electronic alert also indicates that the manufactured part was fabricated by a same manufacturing machine as the known defective manufactured part (tags identify a root cause associated with WDM of the training set (e.g., a particular problem with a particular machine), and may include other information as well, such as identifiers of the machines used to process the wafer, [0035], [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Moioli in order to provide a machine/root-cause identification onto the combination’s defect detector which applies a known technique to improve a similar device, yielding the predictable result of an alert that also names the responsible machine.
-Regarding claim 7, the combination further discloses the manufactured part was fabricated within a manufacturing facility, and wherein the electronic alert further indicates that the manufactured part was improperly fabricated by the manufacturing facility (Moioli, detect involved equipment, [0026]).
-Regarding claim 10, the combination further discloses inferring, based on the executing of the neural network on the image, a manufacturing machine that fabricated the manufactured part (Moioli, detect involved equipment, [0026]).
-Regarding claim 11, the combination further discloses inferring the manufacturing machine comprises identifying a fabrication fingerprint on the manufactured part that indicates the manufacturing machine (Moioli, fingerprints, [0026]).
-Regarding claim 14, the combination further discloses the electronic alert also indicates that the manufactured part was fabricated by a same manufacturing machine as the known defective manufactured part (Moioli, tags identify a root cause associated with WDM of the training set (e.g., a particular problem with a particular machine), and may include other information as well, such as identifiers of the machines used to process the wafer, [0035], [0037]).
-Regarding claim 19, the combination further discloses inferring, based on the executing of the neural network on the image, a manufacturing machine that fabricated the manufactured part (Moioli, detect involved equipment, [0026]).
Claim(s) 4, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (EP 4266244 A1) in view of Gong (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0201460) and further in view of Nieulescu-Mizil (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2018/0374207).
-Regarding claim 4, the combination is silent to teaching that the electronic alert also indicates that the manufactured part should be decommissioned. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Nieulescu-Mizil.
In the same field of endeavor, Nieulescu-Mizil teaches the electronic alert also indicates that the manufactured part should be decommissioned (discarding the defecting product, automatically listing the product as defective and requiring refurbishment, alerting an operator to the defect, or any other corrective action, [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Nieulescu-Mizil in order to prevent customer dissatisfaction and ensure a consistent product quality.
-Regarding claim 15, the combination further discloses the electronic alert also indicates that the manufactured part should be decommissioned (Nieulescu-Mizil, discarding the defecting product, automatically listing the product as defective and requiring refurbishment, alerting an operator to the defect, or any other corrective action, [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING Y HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PING Y HSIEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights